”The illicit drugs will continue…”
Yes but the illegal market will shrink so that it’s more manageable.

”…and the purity issues remain because the price will be shift to remain below the legal price. “
Yes, but users will have the choice whether they want to take the risk and buy illegal drugs.

”drug dealers pursue new recruits with greater intensity than now, to make up for the commercial losses.”
AHA isn’t that what happens every time a drug gang is arrested or drugs are seized?
The drug business becomes a little more risky, which means a little more profitable than before because demand does not reduce.
But when drugs are legalised, the demand from the illegal market DOES reduce because now the drugs are legally obtainable.
Drug dealers may get a proper job, perhaps even get their license to open up their own little cozy legal drug store.

People, I've not been replying promptly as I'm very busy atm.
Forgive me if I am a bit slow with my comments- I do follow the discussion whenever I can as I find it interesting.
I also need a breather and do something else or I'll become too emotionally involved.

Like Fester, I want to find out as much as possible and look at different viewpoints and yes, everybody's contribution is valued no matter what the stance.

BTW Col,
the link to the book Drug War Heresies looks like a good read.
I hope to get some time later on to read more of it because I think it will help me to get a wider perspective.
Have you read the whole book? From skimming it, it seems pretty balanced.

Celevia “Has usage stopped anywhere despite draconian measures?””

Not stopped but reduced.

“Before prohibition, when people could buy drugs from their pharmacy, there were no pushers. Prices were average, ..."

Not sure the model of a “modern pharmacist” is an accurate one for that time.

“Images from the preprohibition era when many psychotropic substances were legally available in America and Europe.”

And these products were in their natural state, not refined, opium versus heroin, chewing coco leaves, not snorting or injecting the active substance. Old style Hash, versus the more powerful versions of marijuana.

“Well that’s your speculation.”

Speculation based on observation and facts from

Gambling in Victoria
Longer Licensing hours in Victoria
The opposite of criminalization in China.

You are talking synonyms, all predictions are "speculation".

But I have more confidence, if ever legalized, in the "Probability" of an explosion in drug use than usage remaining the same or declining. I would put money on it.

The same way you would agree with me the incidence of rape would explode, should it be declared “legal”.

“While drugs have always been there, casinos have not; they’re quite recent.”

Gambling probably predates drug use, casinos have been around for centuries in Europe but they are merely the venue, not the "substance" of ganbling. Victoria demonstrates the conserquences of a change.

“I wonder if you agree with prescribing heroin as an alternative to, or in combination with methadone as part of rehab programs?”

Strictly in rehabiliatation, monitored and supervised and inspected but I would object to a government “shooting up parlour” in my street and thus anywhere else.

“You just assume, without evidence, that drug abuse will increase when it is legalised.”

And you "assume" it won't.

This is a repeat, the harm to non-users will increase with the greater prevalence of drug use as previously “speculated” on.

“Some people are even addicted to a placebo!”

Genetic susceptibility to addiction. I could even give you some names of people I know.

However, the law is blind, it does not distinguish between colour, height, race or genetically inherited characteristics (and nor should it).

“Fractelle is dumb”

anyone who hurls ad hominines at me, thinking they will go unchallenged, is dumb.

“Why would that be different in the case of licensed drug sellers?”

Because the unlicencable dealers, biker gangs etc. would not go away.

“Glad to see you deviate from Libertarian philosophy and now wanna be like communist China was.”

That is coincidence.

Libertarian philosophy believes in people being free but accountable for their actions.
Illegal drug users risk their own and other peoples lives in their abuse of illegal substances.

Those who think freedom comes without responsibility are called anarchists.

I happened to note this as I read the herald sun, over breakfast this morning

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24300797-2862,00.html

I can think of at least three families who would sooner have seen this drug crazed bastard executed before he got into his car.

(Note same Paper, compared to 10 years ago, swing increase in those opposing legalization of cannabis and on abortion, only 4% think it should be illegal)

“Yes but the illegal market will shrink so that it’s more manageable…. Yes, but users will have the choice whether they want to take the risk and buy illegal drugs.”

And

“But when drugs are legalised, the demand from the illegal market DOES reduce because now the drugs are legally obtainable.”

Wrong, the gross number of users will increase, absorbing the legal supply and likely increasing overall demand for the “price point advantaged” illegal supply.

“Drug dealers may get a proper job, perhaps even get their license to open up their own little cozy legal drug store.”

HA HA That is “out with the pixies” thinking and you know it.

I really can’t seriously believe you would even suggest that C….

“People, I've not been replying promptly as I'm very busy atm.”

Despite our different views, I always value and seek out your responses, C and hope to rise to opposing them with reason : - ),

“Have you read the whole book? From skimming it, it seems pretty balanced.”

No, like you, we are all “busy”, life continues…

Hi Col,
I have also enjoyed the discussion despite disagreements.
I’m not going to attempt to refute your previous arguments simply because you probably already can guess my responses and I can anticipate yours.

I simply don’t have anything new to add to the particular cycle of arguments we’ve had, so at this stage I’d need to do some more research for new information.

The point you made about the chop-chop industry is one that I found the most challenging - I don’t know a lot about that and must do some reading.
Any suggestions are welcome.

The point I made that I found you refuted the least strongly is that tobacco use has significantly reduced because it’s treated as a health issue, regulated and controlled.
I want this argument to remain standing because it might well be the key to how we want to deal with other drug abuse in the future (when they finally realise that there must be a better way to reduce drug abuse than same old same old prohibition).
To educate the public about the dangers of smoking and strict rules/regulations have been effective in creating a reduced demand for tobacco.

Why would harm reduction and demand reduction policies and programs not be effective in creating a reduced demand for many other drugs as well?

One thing I might have overlooked to say is that there is quite a lot of information about the link between the illegal drug market criminals and terrorism.
For example, “How Drug Prohibition Finances and Otherwise Enables Terrorism”
http://www.cfdp.ca/eoterror.htm

May I suggest you do some reading about this, as I understand that your main concern is the (potential) harm of illicit drug abuse to non-users of drugs, such as their safety.
I will do some more reading on that myself as well.
Perhaps the time has come (for me) to round off this discussion because of the lack of new facts and information.
Thank you all!

Celivia

Thank you for your patience and perseverance on this topic. You are, by far, more polite and tolerant than I.

An interesting book has been written by an associate professor at Monash University, Tony Taylor, titled “Denial: History Betrayed”
He analyses major cases in 20th and 21st centuries that illustrate the nature of prejudice and how it relates to techniques of the instigators of denial, including their use of popular media and the Internet. At a time when most debates seem to accept the arguments of the deniers at face value the book will focus on the pathology of denial as an abuse of history through distortion of events and self-deception.

I mention this book, because of Col’s continued stance on illegal drugs. He is not interested in truth – just finding opportunities for self-aggrandisement and wilful insult to his OLO peers. Oooops, I guess I should be very afraid, Col will doubtless, hurl another load of self-righteous bile for this jibe. Just can’t help myself, Col is such fun to poke a stick at. I love it when he gets all emotional.

To everyone else who have contributed, I thank you. I enjoy a challenge and have learnt much in researching the subject for this debate.

That there is no easy ‘magic bullet’ answer for the problem of drug addiction is very clear. That we can no longer continue to put our heads in the sand and hope that zero tolerance will make the problem go away is undeniable.